News

Nine month wait for justice in shocking child privacy case

13/10/2021

Alice Watkins

by Alice WatkinsSalacious copy may be good for circulations. But any responsible journalist knows to approach sensitive stories carefully.

A recent story in the Isle of Wight County Press provides us with an important reminder of the potentially devastating consequences of publishers which have failed to handle a sensitive story with care.

The case also serves as a reminder that the industry-controlled press complaints handler, IPSO, remains unfit for purpose.

In September 2020, The Isle of Wight County Press published a series of extraordinary claims based on an interview with a woman. The article was an account of a woman described as a “survivor of horrendous domestic abuse” - a serious allegation, which if credible and true, the newspaper would have been right to cover.

The article explained that the woman had told the newspaper that her husband was an abuser and had told her story through a “chilling poem.”

But the newspaper failed to confirm whether the allegations had any credibility.

In reality, most of the allegations had previously been investigated by police, who made the decision to take no further action. Indeed, a custody case ruled that the couple’s children could be safely returned to him.

The newspaper's failings, in this instance, led to a significant and distressing intrusion into the lives of the man and the children of the couple.

The Editors’ Code - for all its flaws - does include protections for children, which should ensure that journalists avoid intrusion into their lives.

But by the time IPSO acted, much of the damage was likely already done. Because despite many of the details being relatively straightforward, it took the sham regulator nine months to reach its decision.

That will have meant nine months without justice for the family affected by the reporting.

And in that time, further distress is more than likely to have been caused, with any sanction likely to have very little deterring effect to minimise future breaches.

Until IPSO is reformed or replaced by an independent regulator, newspaper wrongdoing will go on.

A Man v Isle of Wight County Presshttps://www.ipso.co.uk/rulings-and-resolution-statements/ruling/?id=28280-20

Hacked Off is funded by supporters, not newspaper owners. Help us take this to Parliament: give £10 a month.

Give £10 a month

Download the full report:

Download report

Queries: campaign@hackinginquiry.org

related Posts

A year and two days: the story of one complaint to IPSO
Guest blog: Chris Goodall's complaint about fifteen errors in a Daily Mail article took IPSO a year and two days to decide. Here he publishes the full timeline — more than 80 emails, hundreds of hours of work, and one correction.
9/22/26
News
SLAPPs and the press: why the Anti-SLAPP Bill is the wrong answer
The private members Bill promoted by Baroness Stowell and Sir John Whittingdale would apply to any claim touching a matter of public interest, however meritorious and however properly brought. Hacked Off sets out why it would harm victims of press abuse, and why section 40 was the better answer.
9/21/26
News
Coverage of Professor Arday was not legitimate: the letter The Times refused to publish
Guest blog: Professor Paul Wragg replies to the letter published in The Times on 25 August defending the press coverage of Professor Jason Arday. The Times declined to publish his reply. We publish it here in full.
8/28/26
News
Defensive, evasive & hypocritical: The press reaction to the death of Jason Arday
The reaction of national newspapers to the death of Professor Jason Arday has exposed a brittle defensiveness at the heart of the press, and a determination to remain outside any meaningful accountability.
8/26/26
News